Not long after the sad passing of Rock/Pop legend, Prince last week, I (that is, me – Matt Sergiou) received an e-mail from Mark Devlin, the DJ/presenter and premier public-speaker on all manner of subjects linked to the dark, occult workings of the music-industry. He asked me if I’d be at all interested in guesting on a hastily-arranged volume of his ‘Good Vibrations’ series of pod-casts, in response to the news of the famous musician’s departure. Accepting his kind offer, we eventually hooked-up via the wonders of ‘Skype’ not long later on April 25th – just four days after reports first broke of Prince’s exit. Joining us in what’s actually a three-way conversation and trade-of-thoughts is none other than well-renowned, veteran researcher, Freeman. He gives us his unique take on the music-star’s life and passing based on his famed knowledge of the occult and arcane. For example, he notes the esoteric and ritualistic significance of purple, a colour that’s synonymous with the musician thanks in large part, of course, to ‘Purple Rain,’ the album and movie that catapulted him into Pop superstardom in 1984. Is this relevant? Well – yes, it certainly could be when you take into account what’s discussed in the pod-cast with regards to the ‘Typhonian Trilogy,’ a series of books by Kenneth Grant, the now-deceased but former high-ranking figure within the ‘O.T.O.’ (‘Ordo Templi Orientis’), the occult order which was once spearheaded by perhaps its most infamous of members, Aleister Crowley, a man who – as you’ll no doubt be aware – was an influence on a number of famous music-stars including, most notably, Led Zeppelin’s Jimmy Page, and the very-recently departed David Bowie.

Freeman & Mark Devlin

In Freeman’s words, “Typhon is the Lord of the Abyss. He is Leviathan, he is all those things inside the Bible – of what lives in the abyss… In the abyss are the fallen angels, the excrement… and Typhon.” If you’re interested to learn how this might connect in some relevant form to the passing of Prince – the oft dubbed, ‘Purple One,’ do please listen to the pod-cast. You most probably won’t be surprised to discover upon doing so that the subject of Typhon and Grant’s trilogies are mentioned in the same breath as – in the words of Freeman again – “blood sacrifice” and “high profile rituals.” This, of course, helps lend fuel to the possibility that the musician was the victim of a dark, ritualistic, sacrificial killing. This scenario is made all the more potent by the fact that his death was announced on the day of the Queen of England’s 90th birthday, which was, interestingly enough, apparently marked by tributes of a purple-coloured nature. We discuss this briefly in the pod-cast and also acknowledge that all of this has occurred during a time in the year where we were leading up to the much-dreaded festival of Beltane when, Freeman says, there’s “the blood sacrifice of the beast.” Furthermore, and as noted by countless researchers of an ‘Alternative’ nature over the years, he reminds us that “when we look to the dates… this April 19th to April 20th, 21st era in time-zone, there are so many seeming ritual sacrifices.”
With this in mind, it’s worth noting at this point that there’s mention during the pod-cast of the apparent contradictions in what we’re being told in the mainstream media with regards to the cause of Prince’s death and how he’s generally perceived to have lived his life. After all, as both Freeman and Mark point out, we’ve been led to believe over the years that the music-star was a health-conscious vegan, a non-drug user, a Jehovah’s Witness, and, I‘d like to add here, a tee-totaller apparently. But this doesn’t tally with the MSM’s reporting of his death which has so far presented us with a constantly-changing version of events, most of which have strongly suggested that he was battling illness or some form of issues connected to prescribed medication. Initially, and as Mark points out in the pod-cast with – I suspect – a tongue a little in cheek, we were told by the mainstream that “he just happened to collapse in an elevator after having the flu at the age of 57.” Since recording this pod-cast, the flu stories have been superseded by reports that he was a victim of AIDS no less. Of course, it’s still way too early in the day to be forming definite conclusions as to what may have contributed to Prince’s passing – indeed, as is the case throughout history when we look at the deaths of high-profile, famous individuals – we might never truly know. Be that as it may though, the MSM, with its dizzying and thus-far ever-escalating array of claims and reports will – as a result – have done little to dampen the suspicions of those of us who’re questioning the mainstream version of events and who are leaning toward the possibility that foul-play might very well have been the cause. Whether Prince met with a grisly, violent end in keeping with the occult, sacrificial practises that Freeman outlines, and/or if it was an evil, cynical manoeuvre on behalf of the corporate ‘Powers That Be’ to somehow claw back ownership of the musician’s lucrative master-tapes which he’d seized control of in 2014, is anyone’s guess at this stage. It’s no secret that he’d been involved in a monumental dispute with his former record company, ‘Warner Bros.,’ a spat which gained him a significant degree of infamy when, in the 1990s, he appeared in public with the word, ‘slave’ inscribed on his face and also changed his name to, (otherwise referred to as, ‘Symbol’). All of this is discussed during the pod-cast, as is his very vocal and very candid views on the nasty machinations of the music-industry.

The moniker is elaborated on in the pod-cast at some length, actually. We get the ‘Freeman perspective’ on the possible occult connotations attached to ‘the symbol’ which, in fact, was one of many alter-egos adopted by Prince during his illustrious career. I get into some of the details of this, putting forward the suggestion that what we might be dealing with here is yet another case in a long line of music-artists suffering from the effects of MK ULTRA/trauma-based mind-control. There’s certainly data available that hints at this. But then again, there’s also the possibility that these multiple personas were – in Mark’s words – “some kind of demonic possession”?

As discussed in the pod-cast, glass pyramids on the roof of Prince’s Paisley Park studio-complex. Notice the one with the cap-stone? The musician is known to have expressed an interest in Egyptian history.

During the pod-cast, we also focus very briefly on the days directly leading up to the news breaking of Prince’s death, when there were highly suggestive indications from him and his camp that they/he somehow knew what was coming. Yet another intriguing puzzle there. What we can be sure of is this though: He was a one-of-a-kind. I mean – just one example – how many Pop superstars do you recall who have openly discussed the issue of chemtrails? Here’s the musician in an interview from a few years back (from 2011, if I’m not mistaken?)…

In the three-way pod-cast, which was originally released online on April 26th, we also raise the issue of 9/11, given that it has specific relevance to Prince. Plus, Freeman waxes lyrical on the thematic, occultic parallels that can be drawn from other high-profile artists such as Katy Perry, and Madonna – the last-surviving of the four ultimate music superstars of the 1980s.

Listen to the pod-cast here:

Here’s some relevant links that might be of interest to you?… First off, you can check out Freeman’s work here:

Musician, painter, and writer, Gavan Kearney dropped in to ‘Red Ice Radio’ recently to discuss the corrosive state of today’s culture, a culture that celebrates nihilism and narcissism. It also, he believes, discards age-old wisdom separating the young from the elderly and, as a result, all the invaluable life experiences they could bestow. Instead, youths are manipulated into joining the “entirely manufactured” ‘teenage rebellion,’ a construct promoted by the Powers That Be, and that identifies a ‘rebel’ by what clothes they wear and what music they listen to. In the interview below (and released earlier this month), Gavan notes that many never break out of this “rebellion by the rules” and hold on well into their 30s, 40s, and 50s.

Born in Cork, Ireland, Gavan’s interest in drawing and painting began at an early age but, as he grew up, he became increasingly suspicious of the media attention and critical plaudits being showered on Modern/Contemporary Art having never met anyone himself who genuinely liked any of it. “Who is actually behind this,” he would ask, and who is benefiting from what is actually an assault on beauty? During the ‘Red Ice’ interview he delves into some of the possible answers, acknowledging the notorious ‘Frankfurt School’ in the process. As far as Gavan is concerned, it’s an attack on craftsmanship, talent, diversity, and freedom of expression. Much of this was brought home to him during his time at art college where, he claims, there was no choice but to accept the Contemporary/Conceptual form if you didn’t want to risk being left “very much outside of the loop.“ Anything that deviated from it or pre-dated it – especially of a spiritual and/or mythological nature – was rejected.

Gavan’s ‘Our Summer.’ Oil on canvas – 2012.

Gavan moved to London in the early ‘90s where he formed and played in various bands. Although not necessarily hostile to the Pop-music medium, he is aware that much of it today is “dark” and “ugly.” He briefly touches on this during the interview suggesting that the best way to fight against performers such as Lady Gaga who actively push ‘Illuminati’ symbolism and ritualism in their work is by switching them off and ignoring them. Since completing a degree in Fine Arts / Sonic Arts, he’s maintained a recording-career of his own. Operating under the moniker, Sand Snowman, he’s currently involved in a project with long-term musical/life partner, Moonswift. Below, is the track, ‘Transfigured Forest’ from his 2011 album, ‘Vanished Chapters’…

As well as playing music, Gavan has written about it. Below, his article about John Lennon and available on ‘Nine Points Magazine,’ a website dedicated to the ‘Enneagram.’ Taken from the Greek word, ἐννέα(‘ennea,’ meaning ‘nine‘) and, γράμμα (‘gramma,’ meaning something ‘written’ or ‘drawn’), and with its roots having been dated back thousands of years, it refers to a circle inscribed by nine points which is used as a symbol to arrange and depict principal personality archetypes (or energies); 1 – The Reformer, 2 – The Helper, 3 – The Achiever, 4 – The Individualist, 5 – The Investigator, 6 – The Loyalist, 7 – The Enthusiast, 8 – The Challenger, 9 – The Peacemaker. These one-word descriptors can be expanded into further sets of traits. In his article, Gavan writes, “Lennon himself was a mass of contradictions; a man of peace with an infamous violent streak who was involved in several high profile aggressive episodes, who sang ‘imagine no possessions’ to accompanying footage of himself strolling through his vast Surrey mansion, and a man who castigated authorities and yet spent his life searching for an ideology or father figure to believe in. These traits reveal Lennon as an Enneagram type Six (The Partisan, The Loyalist, The Questioner).” Read more here:

Margaret Thatcher was often accused of having little (if any) affection for the Arts. In a 2009 ‘Guardian’ article for example, an assortment of writers, musicians, composers, and painters who were active during her premiership spoke out against her supposed philistine attitude. The newspaper’s film critic, Peter Bradshaw opined, “from 1979 to 1990, nothing, with the possible exception of football, was of less interest to Margaret Thatcher than cinema. For her, the Arts were greedy and ungrateful gobblers-up of public subsidy, and cinema was the least compelling of this fantastically undeserving lobby. She had visited the cinema in Grantham as a child and was said to enjoy Hollywood and British films from the 30s and 40s, but her biographer and friend Charles Moore says that it’s doubtful she saw much as an adult. Film was entirely irrelevant to her personally and politically, and her tentative contact with shrewd ad-men such as Gordon Reece, Tim Bell and the Saatchi brothers was the nearest she came to show business.” Hanif Kureishi, perhaps best known for writing the screenplay for the 1985 movie ‘My Beautiful Laundrette‘ which tackles issues such as racism, homosexuality and Britain’s political and economic policies during the Thatcher era, was far more scathing in his assessment of her. He stated that she, “like the Queen, is basically vulgar, and has little cultural sophistication or understanding. But unlike the Queen, she actively hated culture, as she recognised that it was a form of dissent.” He continued, “Thatcher had no understanding of what a central place the Arts have in British life. Or how good Britain is at producing books, films, theatre and music.” It’s somewhat ironic, then, that her influence on the cultural landscape of 1980s Britain is deeply profound. Within hours of her death last week, bloggers and social commentators were quick to illustrate this through countless examples of songs, movies, TV shows and plays that poured out during her historic run as Premier. A number of musicians who formed bands or were well known for singing out against her policies during this time have commented on her passing, including Bobby Gillespie, lead singer of Primal Scream, one of the most innovative British bands to have emerged during the latter half of that decade. He reportedly told ‘AFP,’ “I was very happy when I heard the news. My friends were texting me and everybody thought it was great.” He also praised bands that flourished during that era such as Joy Division for “making art that felt like Britain… It was a grey, paranoid, violent place and they were making music that reflected that, so to me it’s true art. They were important because they were questioning authority, ‘think for yourself’ that was the message of that stuff. (Now) we live in a very violent and extreme time but the music I hear doesn’t reflect that. Young bands are so conservative, so bland, no one says anything that’s controversial or confrontational.” His observations on the lack of social commentary in contemporary Rock is a theme that ’Conspiro Media’ has explored in the past at some length, for example, in a June 2011 article titled, ’The Cowell Connection,’ the corporate-led centralisation of the music industry towards the end of the 1980s and the swallowing-up of small independent labels that were once breeding grounds for outspoken artists was cited as a possible cause for the downturn in songs with a social/political emphasis, as was the meteoric rise of Simon Cowell and ‘X Factor’ in 2004 and the never-ending stable of Mind-Controlled puppets that have rolled out of it’s production-line ever since.

It would be wrong to assume, as have a number of commentators over the years, that Thatcher’s resignation in 1990 somehow starved artists of a muse that they could vent their anger and frustration against. Whilst there’s no denying the fact her policies led to deep, often violent divisions during the 1980s, and her tough, uncompromising public image riled her most passionate of critics, modern-day bands needn’t look too far for replacements. As Bobby Gillespie states, we do indeed live in an “extreme time,” arguably even more extreme than the days when the so-called ‘Iron Lady’ was residing at No.10 Downing Street. Since her resignation 23 years ago, sections of the world have been (or are being) bombed into submission by a cabal that justifies it’s acts of aggression based on the lies of 9/11 and Tony Blair’s and George W. Bush’s “weapons of mass destruction.” Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, millions of people across the globe marched on the streets in protest in an international display of solidarity not seen since the Vietnam War years when well-known musicians of the time were quick to add their voices to the chorus of discontent… In the 2000s, the music scene, in the main, remained silent. In present-day Europe, the ordinary man and woman on the street are being brought to their knees by an un-elected group of bureaucrats who rob their money. Meanwhile, the banksters snatch their own slice from the pie, whilst the remainder of the population are forced to endure “austerity measures” that include cuts in public services and the stripping of benefits from the most vulnerable in society… but, the singers still ain‘t singing.

There are voices of dissent in the distance, though…

The decline of guitar-based music in Britain in recent years has coincided with the rise in popularity of Urban/Dance, a genre that incorporates a number of styles including Grime and Hip Hop, both of which have between them delivered material that, on occasion, is packed with social / political comment. In the wake of 2011’s London riots for example, a number of the UK’s best known rappers including Professor Green, and Lethal Bizzle spoke out about the unrest, stating that it was a cry of desperation by a generation of under-privileged, disaffected, frustrated, angry youths shunned by government, and trapped inside a hidden section of society where drug-taking, drug-dealing, theft, and murder is the norm. Within days of the riots, lesser recognisable Urban artists were releasing tracks in response.
Unfortunately, these rebellious voices of reason are constantly drowned out by the over-powering noise of the Music Industrial Complex and it’s endless procession of inane, trivial stars and starlets who’re all dancing and singing to the same tired old tune. There is music available that tackles themes of social injustice, war, and the ever-growing presence of the New World Order, but, you have to go look for it, because it won’t come to you courtesy of the mainstream.

Margaret Thatcher has drawn her last breath, but the defiant, angry spirit she inadvertently ignited in the voices of countless musicians and performers during the 1980s is still desperately holding on for dear life… somewhere.

——————————————————————————————————————–

FROM THOSE WHO WERE THERE…
A number of music artists who were actively recording and performing during the Thatcher era found time over the last week to share their views on her death, her legacy, and her policies…

Morrisey:
One of Margaret Thatcher’s harshest critics, his controversial views have brought him into direct contact with the authorities. Following the release of his 1988 album, ‘Viva Hate,‘ he was investigated by police for a song featured on it titled, ‘Margaret on the Guillotine’ which described the death of the then Prime Minister as a “wonderful dream.”

In an official statement posted on the website ‘True to You’ on April 9th 2013, he remarked:

“The difficulty with giving a comment on Margaret Thatcher’s death to the British tabloids is that, no matter how calmly and measuredly you speak, the comment must be reported as an “outburst” or an “explosive attack” if your view is not pro-establishment. If you reference ‘the Malvinas,’ it will be switched to ‘the Falklands,’ and your ‘Thatcher’ will be softened to a ‘Maggie.’ This is generally how things are structured in a non-democratic society. Thatcher’s name must be protected not because of all the wrong that she had done, but because the people around her allowed her to do it, and therefore any criticism of Thatcher throws a dangerously absurd light on the entire machinery of British politics. Thatcher was not a strong or formidable leader. She simply did not give a shit about people, and this coarseness has been neatly transformed into bravery by the British press who are attempting to re-write history in order to protect patriotism. As a result, any opposing view is stifled or ridiculed, whereas we must all endure the obligatory praise for Thatcher from David Cameron without any suggestion from the BBC that his praise just might be an outburst of pro-Thatcher extremism from someone whose praise might possibly protect his own current interests. The fact that Thatcher ignited the British public into street-riots, violent demonstrations and a social disorder previously unseen in British history is completely ignored by David Cameron in 2013. In truth, of course, no British politician has ever been more despised by the British people than Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher’s funeral on Wednesday will be heavily policed for fear that the British tax-payer will want to finally express their view of Thatcher. They are certain to be tear-gassed out of sight by the police.United Kingdom? Syria? China? What’s the difference?”

Johnny Marr (Ex-Smiths):

“My thoughts are that if you see the word ‘Thatcherism,’ it’s not a word that stands for something good. I don’t think there’s any getting around that.

I thought that the British government’s statement that she made Britain great again was false and really arrogant because everybody knows, left or right, that Margaret Thatcher didn’t make Britain great. If that was the case then why isn’t it? I felt like that was very, very disrespectful to generations of families who have never recovered from her legacy.”

*’Rolling Stone’ magazine, April 13th 2013

Annie Lennox (Ex-Eurythmics):“Margaret Thatcher’s death has provoked an outpouring of polarised responses, clearly reflecting how people felt, and still feel about her, right up to the present day.As a political leader, her style was strident (some would say strong), inflexible (some would say firm), authoritarian (some would say powerful ), tough (some would say resolute), arrogant (some would say assured), snobbish (some would say she had a sense of values), and faintly ridiculous, (some would say patriotic). She was the headmistress and we were the renegade schoolchildren. She was the leader and we were the ardent followers…all depending on which side you happened to be on. Despite the evidence of her gender, she could never be described as a Feminist. She was more of a singular woman in the old boys club than a defender of women’s rights. Although she was the daughter of a humble grocer shop owner, her aspirations far outreached her roots.. which is tremendous but… she failed to have any real understanding or connection with ordinary people, riding rough shod over their lives, leaving them to deal with the aftermath of a decimated industrial era. Entire communities disintegrated with generations being left to cope for decades down the line.I admire dedication, strength of purpose and vision, these are all fine qualities but when political policies are so brutally hard line, that they affect people’s entire existence at a pen stroke (whilst being told to pull themselves up by their boot straps), you can be sure that the spirit of dictatorship has arisen. From my own perspective I keep recalling the heavy sense of oppression that saturated every aspect of the 70s, and I can’t say I have any sense of fond nostalgia.”

*’FaceBook’ posting, April 10th 2013

Billy Bragg:
Perhaps British music’s best known, most outspoken activist, his career was somewhat defined during the 1980s by his unflinching, criticism of Thatcher and her policies.

“This is not a time for celebration. The death of Margaret Thatcher is nothing more than a salient reminder of how Britain got into the mess that we are in today. Of why ordinary working people are no longer able to earn enough from one job to support a family; of why there is a shortage of decent affordable housing; of why domestic growth is driven by credit, not by real incomes; of why tax-payers are forced to top up wages; of why a spiteful government seeks to penalise the poor for having an extra bedroom; of why Rupert Murdoch became so powerful; of why cynicism and greed became the hallmarks of our society.

Raising a glass to the death of an infirm old lady changes none of this. The only real antidote to cynicism is activism. Don’t celebrate – organise!”

*’FaceBook’ posting, April 8th 2013.

John Lydon (formerly, Johnny Rotten; The Sex Pistols):

Speaking to journalists after arriving in Sydney for a live date with his band, PiL, he said, “I was her enemy in her life but I will not be her enemy in her death.” Furthermore, “her politics were really dreadful and derisive and caused a great many issues for me when I was young, for all of us trying to go through that. But that don’t mean I am gonna dance on her grave, as they say. I’m not that kind of person. I was her enemy in her life but I will not be her enemy in her death. I am not a coward.” He added, “my entire life, socially, was all around the Maggie era. That was the great challenge as a Sex Pistol was how to deal with Margaret Thatcher. I think we did rather good.”

Dave Wakeling:
The guitarist and vocalist of 2 Tone band, The Beat who recorded a song titled ‘Stand Down Margaret’ in 1980.

“The American perspective of Margaret Thatcher, certainly from a foreign policy point of view, was that she was a trusted ally – of Ronald Reagan’s in particular – and did a pretty good job at it. And there’s an argument there. But what most Americans didn’t see was the complete dismantling of towns and villages, of people’s lives being cut short and then cutting their own lives short because they thought, like the Sex Pistols said, that there was no future. That time signalled a breaking of the English spirit, where people who used to have each other’s back, and used to talk to strangers – Thatcher turned neighbours into competitors.People misunderstand the socialism of the English after World War II. Soldiers like my father got back to England and there was nothing left – there were no hospitals, land had been decimated, and that carried through our childhood. So everybody built stuff together and looked after each other. It was like, when push came to shove, although we had differences of opinion, we had each others’ backs. Mrs. Thatcher’s introduction of trickle-down economics, and we’re still waiting for it to work, broke that mold. She broke the unions. She sold shares of companies that the people already owned, all of which flopped in value. A generation saw their parents give up on life as they saw their own opportunities stunted. They saw the town where they’d grown up dismantled. She was very divisive.It was obviously a very transformative time – similar in some ways to what Americans have gone through in the last few years. A recession closing on depression, a sense of nihilism – but it reached epic proportions in England where the scapegoats were anybody who seemed to be different … ‘Your skin colour is different? It must be your fault.’ To divide people against each other, make them forget in their pain and common suffering, and conquer. Simple. Historic. It’s been done so many times, I don’t even know how it works anymore. People go for the bait and get desperate, and if you can reach out with a bit of national pride, you can pump things up with a good war. Then there was pretence. Something that I think the film Iron Lady missed was, not only how Mrs. Thatcher’s accent was terribly affected – she had a slightly D.H. Lawrence accent from Nottingham East Midlands, or Robin Hood country, and adopted a very proper Oxford English accent – but her real voice would break out sometimes when she’d get angry. Because most everything about Mrs. Thatcher was pretend – it was a way for the privileged to secure themselves at the expense of everybody else, which continues to this day. The song ‘Stand Down Margaret’ was as much about, ‘get off your soapbox!’ as standing down in a political sense. It was: stop showing off to everybody; humble yourself a bit; stop pretending you’re posh – we know you’re from Nottingham.In England, there’s a notion called ‘kippers and curtains,’ where somebody buys expensive net curtains to hide the fact that they don’t have any furniture at all and they’re really inside eating smoked fish twice a day off an old packing case.It’s a front. Acting posh and hoping that rich people would love her. Sure, she ended up as Lady Thatcher, but grew up as a grocer’s daughter. Some say that’s terrific – she broke the glass ceiling for women, but she didn’t. Pretending to be an aristocratic man that liked to bully people is not any essence of feminine power. It was just aping the worst of male power. That’s not to say that change wasn’t required. We understood England was in a pickle and needed to modernize, but we really didn’t need to become a floating aircraft carrier for America and at the same time give up our own traditions. Every country and every decade has to deal with change, but it was done with cruelty and arrogantly. Because of that, it created more enemies than friends. Still, we wanted to poke fun at it. We wanted the song to be happy. We were sick of her making people miserable and we were sick, frankly, of so many miserable sentiments and songs and attitudes in opposition to her. So we wanted a protest song that was full of life and word play. We didn’t want it to be insulting. We even asked please [the lyric: “Stand down Margaret / Stand down please”]. Unfortunately, we never got the chance to say thank you. I disagree with Mrs. Thatcher absolutely and entirely. And I still feel sad and heartbroken at what she did to England. But beyond all that, we send comfort and solace to her family, because it’s always a sad and reflective time when a mom dies. At the end of the day, the worst thing about Margaret Thatcher is not that she said in 1987, ‘There’s no such thing as society – there are individual men and women and there are families,’ or that she was an ardent supporter of the Apartheid movement in South Africa who once called Nelson Mandela a ‘grubby little terrorist.’ The worst thing is, she bloody won and we let her get away with.”

Anyone familiar with the notorious ‘Illuminati’ and it’s alleged plans for a New World Order, will perhaps also be aware that one of it’s required aims in reaching this goal is to strip away any semblance of individualism.

Believe it or not, one such example is typified by the history of the music industry.

At the birth, of what has since become commonly known as “Pop music” during the latter half of the 1950s, there were a multitude of record labels in existence. By the end of the 1980s, most of them had been gobbled up and either dismantled, or merged into the larger companies known at the time as, “the Big 6” (EMI, CBS, BMG, Polygram, WEA and Universal). A decade later, this became “the Big 5” when Polygram absorbed into Universal, and then yet another decade later, “the Big 4”, when Sony (formerly CBS) merged with BMG to become Sony/BMG.

Many critics have argued that the death of the smaller, independent label has led to a slow, but steady decline in the nurturing and support of music artists, a nurturing that can only be successfully adopted by an intimate team of people who work within a reasonably small organisation where communication is easier to maintain.

Although many music artists have enjoyed fame and success instantaneously, history has shown others had to endure an uphill struggle. We now live in an age where newly-signed artists are dropped from record contracts and tossed by the wayside merely because their second or third release “only” manages to reach a “disappointing” number 3 in the charts. It’s perhaps important to acknowledge that had this policy been adopted in Pop music’s earlier pioneering days, then the world would probably have never heard of The Beatles, whose first ever UK single, ‘Love Me Do’ stalled at a modest number 17 in the charts. Furthermore, their early attempts at breaking into the lucrative U.S. market suffered continuous setbacks, despite the efforts of their record company. They are by no means an exception… Elton John, Queen, David Bowie, The Kinks, Stevie Wonder and even Elvis Presley (who released a total of 16 singles over a two-year period, all of which failed to appear in the U.S. mainstream charts until his first hit record in 1956) are other notable examples.

Question is, had these artists signed to one of the major “Big 4” companies during the impatient era we now exist in, would they have ever been given the chance to prosper and grow?

The so-called “Big 4” (from top left and clockwise): WEA, Universal, EMI and Sony/BMG

One possible symptom of the new corporate-led, centralised structure, is an apparent lack of artists who write and record music with a social/political emphasis. Anyone wishing to look at the current singles and albums chart-listings would be hard-pressed to find any such material. One is tempted to ask what has become of the fresh, brave, challenging forms of protest and social comment expressed in musical form in earlier years by such legends as Bob Dylan, The Clash, Marvin Gaye, Joan Baez, Bob Marley, The Jam and even the Sex Pistols? Has there been an orchestrated move by the Big Companies to stifle the growth of such acts in order to dissociate the mainly young music-buying public from thinking about the world they live in, choosing instead to bombard them with over-sexualised starlets and ’Pretty Boys’ singing trite lyrics over inoffensive, uniformed dance-beats?

The sharp increase in the presence of such manufactured acts has happened at precisely the same time as the acknowledged decline in the prominence of musicians who play in Rock bands (the genre most favoured by artists who feature social comment in their lyrical content). Current chart trends would support this view. According to the official UK Top 40 singles chart (as compiled by the reputable publication, ‘Music Week’ on May 22nd – 28th 2011), there were NO rock/guitar-based acts featured at all…. that’s right… not even one, unless you count the re-released ‘Fast Car‘ by Tracy Chapman (which is actually an old hit from the 1980s).

In January 2010, Martin Talbot, the head of the Official Charts Company, gloomily reported that 2009 had been the toughest year to date for independent guitar music in the UK. Only two ‘indie’ (independent) guitar bands featured in the top 20 top-selling albums of that year.

According to a BBC-news article in September 2010 under the heading of, ‘Rock Anthems Vanishing from Charts’, sales of Rock singles had dropped by almost 18% in the first eight months of 2010, compared with 2009, whilst Urban/Soul/Rap single sales were up 33%, with Pop rising 30% in the same period. In the same article, Absolute Radio head of music James Curran alarmingly stated that the singles chart had “become unrecognisable from even two years ago”. He said: “What’s quite frightening is how quickly it has changed. It’s very difficult to get a bona fide Rock hit these days, even by some of the biggest bands.” When asked about the current state of British Rock music, Mani, a former member of one of the 1980’s and 90’s most innovative bands, The Stone Roses said, “It’s all about the songs and technique and spirit. Bands of my era had a whacked out agenda. They walked it, they lived it, they breathed it. [They were] not necessarily the best musicians in the world but they can try things that are dangerous. I think what’s wrong with British music at the moment is people are too career-orientated. They’re afraid, or record companies will not allow them to take risks, and that just makes everything so uniform. Why bother?”

The depressing downturn was summed up rather tellingly by a web-article in January 2011, which starkly informed it’s readers that 2010 was the year the, “number of rock songs on the U.K. charts (was) at (the) lowest level in half a century”. According to the article, only three Rock songs appeared in the top 100 best-selling U.K. list that year.

Of course, this current downturn may be – as Talbot sates – all about fashion and “trends and movements.” As he points out, “sometimes movements can be sparked by one act coming out of nowhere and doing something different.”

Looking back at Pop history over the last 60 years, there have indeed been examples of music genres or acts that have entered the scene and given birth to a new style. For example, back in the early 60s, the initial Rock ‘n’ Roll craze (which had shot to prominence during the 1950s, introducing us to the likes of Elvis Presley, Little Richard and Chuck Berry) had just about run it’s course. A fallow period followed when the charts were invaded by pale imitators and so-called ’crooners’. It wasn’t until the arrival of The Beatles in 1963 and the ‘Beat groups’ that the music-scene was revitalised, giving birth to the ‘Swinging Sixties’. Punk music also achieved a similar feat in 1976, sweeping away the so-called “Progressive Rock” bands that had reigned supreme during the early to mid 70s. The rise and growing popularity of ‘House music’ during the late 1980s (a modernised version of 70s Disco music born in the clubs of Chicago) also made an impact – especially in the UK and Europe – giving rise to the ‘Acid House’ and ‘Rave’ era of the late 80s and early 90s.

Three acts that epitomized the eras they represented; A young Elvis Presley, The Beatles during their historic 1964 U.S. tour, and Punk fire-brands, The Sex Pistols

However, what differentiates these examples to the current trends of today, is that, irrespective of any shake-up in the musical landscape, guitar-based music has always prevailed. Furthermore, the current domination of Pop, Urban and Rap music is not representative of a “new trend” or “movement“. For example, so-called “Urban” music is merely another word for “Soul” and “R’n’B”, a genre with it’s roots firmly fixed back to the 1950s and 60s. Additionally, Rap music (otherwise known as ‘Hip Hop’) has been a regular presence in the Pop charts since it’s early pioneering days in the late 1970s and is by no means, “something different“. Interestingly, the story of Hip Hop and Rap appears to show that there has been a deliberate move on the part of the major record companies to sanitise a particular music-genre. Once a voice-piece for the poor and disaffected, Rap music was born on the streets of America where, through the use of syncopated lyrics, young rappers and DJs highlighted the poverty and injustices of American society. This was further explored by such acts as Public Enemy, KRS-One and (the assassinated) Tupac Shakur well into the 1990s. Today, commercial Hip Hop music has largely become synonymous with lyrical content that rarely strays away from sexual innuendo. Any Rap fans looking for something a little more substantial, are forced to scour the outer fringes where a surprising amount of Hip Hop is recorded and released on a weekly basis concentrating on issues ranging from politics to foreign affairs and even the Illuminati. These offerings never reach the mainstream, irrespective of any quality or innovation that might be on display.

If there is indeed a conspiracy to disengage us from educating our minds whilst at the same time bombarding us with meaningless, unimaginative, uninspired, music performed by seemingly vacant Pop stars with little to say, then music mogul Simon Cowell requires further investigation for his possible – and perhaps – willing part in all of this.

Cowell has amassed a multi-million pound empire from the creation of TV shows such as the ‘X-Factor’ and the ‘…Got Talent‘ series. However, the music mogul has had more than his fair share of criticism.

His ‘stable’ of star discoveries has been described by some as nothing more than an army of bland, boring robots cynically delivered to the public via a constantly moving conveyor-belt. In fact, Cowell’s fiercest critics have blamed him for contributing to the overall death of a music scene that was once built on foundation-stones of ingenuity, inspiration, excitement, passion, outrageousness, vitality and rebelliousness.

Some of Cowell’s star-stable – such as Leona Lewis – have enjoyed continued success under the guidance of Cowell and his company, ‘Syco Productions’. Others though, have seemingly been tossed aside like discarded toys. In a recent UK newspaper article titled, ’Cowell the Executioner’, an unnamed “former music industry insider” said, “The way they run the business is immoral… The whole basis of a show like X Factor is to find the next big talent. But when they do, they use them and throw them away. Talk about crushing people’s dreams. What they forget is that often they are dealing with kids who are quite fragile.”

Former Bee Gee Robin Gibb, who once appeared as a special guest on one of Cowell’s talent shows, has also lambasted the TV talent scout. “I don’t like how these people are chosen almost from nowhere“, he said, during a 2008 interview. “I don’t believe that many of them really yearned to get into a life of music, more that they want fame. The ones that win are told what to sing, how to dress, how to behave. They are over-styled ‘puppets’. They aren’t musicians they are simply a product. It is a glorified advert. The shows are much more about television and making money for the people behind the show, than actually finding musical talent. For a while that product is popular but there is hardly ever any longevity. And then these kids just get dumped with no real way of getting back in again because they didn’t spend the time over the years building up contacts and working out how things worked for themselves.”

This view has also been enforced by former ‘X-Factor’ winner Steve Brookstein who – despite enjoying initial success – was later dropped by Cowell and ‘Syco’ leaving him without a record contract, a situation he has yet to recover from. In an interview earlier this year he said, “I was dropped because I wouldn’t play the game. Simon was quoted everywhere saying I just couldn’t sell records. I felt completely done over. I emailed him asking him for an explanation, but I got a message back from his lawyers asking me not to contact him directly”.

Of course, the concept of talent-spotting and grooming is nothing new. Back in Pop music’s formative years during the mid-to-late 50s, Simon would have been labelled a music “impresario”, much in the same way that Larry Parnes was when his stable of stars invaded the British charts back in that era. His approach was to select, and then groom, handsome young men who would be attractive to a teenage audience. He also gave his charges new ear-catching stage names. For example, Ron Wycherley became Billy Fury, Reg Patterson was re-named Marty Wilde and Tommy Hicks was re-branded Tommy Steele. Admittedly, Parnes was far from an angel. According to one report by researcher Steve Walker, one of Parnes‘s artists, Vince Eager, “began to wonder why he had never received any record royalties. “You’re not entitled to any,” Larry Parnes told him. “But it says in my contract that I am,” Eager protested. “It also says I have power of attorney over you, and I’ve decided you’re not getting any,” Parnes replied.”

Another significant figure who operated during this era was Carroll Levis, a Canadian talent scout who toured the length and breadth of Britain’s theatres during the latter half of the 1950s looking for new performers to appear on his TV programme. The show introduced new talent, with each show having a winner chosen by audience response in the form of applause measured by the ‘Clapo-meter’.

Larry Parnes

There are notable factors (if you pardon the pun) that differentiate Cowell from his Black & White-era counterparts. For example, despite his questionable business tactics, Parnes has since been credited for leaving behind a respectable legacy in the pages of British Pop history. His artist-stable was largely made up of genuinely talented performers who recorded a number of seminal British Rock ’n’ Roll classics during the late 1950s and early 60s. Parnes also employed an in-house songwriter to pen his artists‘ tunes, unlike Cowell who has been criticised for his over-reliance on uninspired, lacklustre cover versions. Levis too was constantly on the hunt for talented individuals based upon the merits of their own unique abilities.

Carroll Levis

In comparison, even after more than two decades in the music industry, Cowell has yet to provide even one universally acclaimed artist of note, let alone song, but despite this, his apparent influence on the current course of Popular music far outweighs the combined efforts of Parnes and Levis, whose contributions (although important) were never a game-changer.

Cowell currently enjoys a level of power and prestige that Parnes and Levis could only ever have dreamt of. In 2010, British magazine ‘New Statesman’ listed him at number 41 in a list of “The World’s 50 Most Influential Figures”.

Larry Parnes with his young protege, Billy Fury

Perhaps the question that has to be asked at this point is, has Cowell’s acknowledged influence only been felt in the music industry, or has it managed to permeate itself into everyday, so-called, “normal” society? In an age of reality-TV and celebrity worship, programmes such as ‘X-Factor’ have been blamed for giving millions of people the false hope that they too can become rich and famous overnight. In 2008, a UK teaching union claimed that children were turning away from schoolwork because they saw education as unhelpful to their ambition to become rich and famous. The Association of Teachers and Lecturers claimed to have been, “ appalled at the extent of the decline in this country into the cult of celebrity, which is perverting children’s aspirations and expectations”. Many teachers also said their pupils sought to be famous with no discernible talent.

Mary Bousted, the general secretary of the association, said: “We are not surprised about infiltration of celebrity culture in schools – it reflects the current media obsession with celebrity and the effect of celebrity culture on society as a whole. We are deeply concerned that many pupils believe celebrity status is available to everyone. They do not understand the hard work it takes to achieve such status.”

According to performing arts school franchise ‘Stagecoach’ student numbers leapt from 12,000 in 1999 to 36,000 in 2010. It was in 2005, when programmes like ‘The X-Factor’ were at their zenith, that David Sprigg, co-founder of Stagecoach, saw the biggest spike in student numbers. He said, “99.9% of students will not suddenly appear on television. We tell them it’s a crowded and unreliable profession.”

In 2007, former Oasis star, Noel Gallagher gave reporters a typical Gallagher-esque analysis of Cowell and his talent shows when he linked them to mental illness. He said, “if somebody is dangling this carrot of ‘fame and fortune’ in front of a girl who can sing like Britney Spears then they’re going to go for it, right, because they live in a s*** hole. But it seems to bring on instant mental illness. You’re going in at the top, with a number one that sells 750,000 or whatever. You spend a year slogging around the country and then what? You can’t go back cos that would look bad“.

Former ‘X-Factor’ winner Steve Brookstein called the Cowell process “humiliating” and akin to “bear bating”. He also gave a somewhat dark description of Cowell’s celebrated power and influence. “It’s amazing how many doors close when you part company with Cowell“, he said in a recent interview, “it’s almost like leaving a mafia family”.

Perhaps comparisons with the “mafia” are a little off target, but Cowell’s untold wealth, power and influence is the kind largely enjoyed and shared by members of another form of secret society, a society that is dedicated to an agenda aimed at global control.

Cowell having fun. Have you noticed the Masonic emblem on the front and side of the speedboat?

Is Cowell a Showbiz/culture representative for a hidden Elite? Is he a designated Culture Assassin with a mission to dumb-down the world’s youth and destroy a music scene which has been used as a voice-piece and form of expression by young people for almost 60 years?

As many researchers, whistle-blowers and witnesses have claimed, this secret Elite operates within a dark, hidden world that goes far beyond the confines and clichés of Big Business and political machinations. In a bid to grasp every last morsel of control from an unsuspecting global population, this cabal has adopted techniques and methods that, to the unfamiliar eye, would beggar belief. One such technique is the applied, scientific use of Mind Control – also known as: MK Ultra.

Many of it’s origins reach back to the 1930s and ‘40s when Hitler’s Nazi regime began conducting live experiments on inmates at concentration camps at Auschwitz and Dachau. The victims were subjected to electro-shock, trauma-bonding, hypnosis and a variety of drugs. Following the end of World War Two, many of the top Nazi scientists who pioneered these techniques were brought over to the United States under the guise of ‘Operation Paperclip’, a secret program which was used to recruit Nazi experts from all fields of science. The aim of this covert operation (which was directed by the Office of Strategic Services – later to be re-named, the C.I.A.) was to deny German scientific knowledge and expertise to the USSR and the UK (as well as Germany). Backed by then-President Truman, ‘Operation Paperclip’ gave birth to many initiatives and organisations, including NASA (which was headed by Nazi rocket scientist and decorated war hero, Wernher von Braun).

According to official accounts, ‘MK Ultra’ began in April 1953 under the orders of CIA director Allen Dulles. With the ‘Cold War’ gaining pace between America and Russia, U.S. authorities were keen to use this mind-control technique on captured Russian spies and prisoners of war during interrogation. Millions of dollars were invested in these experiments, many (if not the majority) of which were conducted on unknowing participants.

Much of this secret operation became public in 1977 when an investigation was launched by the U.S. Senate Select Committe on Intelligence. One of the members of the committee included Senator Ted Kennedy, who said:

“The Deputy Director of the C.I.A. revealed that over thirty universities and institutions were involved in an “extensive testing and experimentation” program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens “at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign.” Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to “unwitting subjects in social situations.”

Any chance of finding out the full, unadulterated facts surrounding MK Ultra, and how it was administered by the U.S. authorities, have been severely hampered due to a decision made in 1973 by the C.I.A.’s then head Richard Helms, who ordered all files regarding this project to be destroyed. Only 20,000 documents survived this purge, due to them having been incorrectly stored in a financial record building.

Helms’s efforts to block the public from finding out the full facts has led to much speculation about what really went on. For example, many researchers and first-hand witnesses have claimed that MK Ultra was more than just about extracting information from prisoners of war, and was actually used for a multitude of purposes ranging from creating (through ’brainwashing’) ‘robot-like‘ assassins (as documented in the movie, ‘The Manchurian Candidate‘), sex slaves and prostitutes (for the purpose of bribing top political figures into submission), drug-running, and spreading disinformation through the mass-media.

In recent years, researchers have also claimed that the world of entertainment has been an integral part in all of this.

In their bid to take control of our everyday lives, the so-called ‘Elite’ have been accused of going as far as to using (mind-controlled) Pop/Rock singers and movie actresses as unwitting agents in their bid to bring about a collapse in the basic moral values of society through the promotion of sexual promiscuity in the young, social upheaval, and a breakdown and lack of respect for the traditional ‘family unit’.

And this is – perhaps – where Simon Cowell appears in the ugly equation.

On taking a look at his life and career, there are certain ‘tell-tale’ signs that indicate Cowell is an active participant in the ‘handling’ of mind-controlled singers and artistes.

For example, there are notable and credible ‘clues’ to be found in his past relationships with women. And what about his ‘stable’ of star-acts borne from his TV-talent shows? Are they too unwitting (’controlled’) victims being used by Cowell to cheapen the cultural landscape of everyday life and bring about false dreams and hopes in the minds of millions of youngsters?

Cowell’s life-story appears to be entwined within a vast, tangled web of connections that link into other conspiracies and conspirators. In fact, a number of his closest friends and colleagues have also been accused of similar suspicious activities (as well as Satanism and murder). On closer inspection, this interweaving web is so long that it requires a great deal more than one solitary page on a website to investigate.

COMING NEXT:

PART TWO: ‘MIND CONTROL HANDLER?’

**************************************************

**ADDENDUM (June 2011):

Shortly after completing this article, a number of stories and articles appeared in the mainstream media and on the internet which cast a critical eye over Cowell and his ‘…..Got Talent’ series.

The apparent backlash began in late May 2011 when it was revealed that Cheryl Cole (one of Cowell’s judges on the hit show) had been “sacked” from the U.S. version of the series. A number of media articles claimed that Cowell was to blame – although he strenuously denied this at the time, and insisted the decision to axe Cole was made by American TV bosses. Cowell’s recent series of shows were also attacked by TV critics who claimed the choice of judges were dull and uninspired.

Potentially more damaging are the allegations made via an anonymous internet article which claimed the most recent UK series of ‘… Got Talent’ was already “fixed” in the favour of contestant Ronan Parke to win.

The article is believed to have been written by a Sony/BMG employee based in Germany. It claims that ‘Syco’ talent scouts spotted Ronan two years ago and brought him on to ‘Britain’s Got Talent’ – with the plan to fix it for him to win.

The internet attack on Syco describes the alleged “manipulation of, not only the show and the contestants, but also the viewing public“. It also alleged that Ronan’s hairstyle, clothing and mannerisms were all choreographed.

Cowell has denied the allegations, labelling it a “smear campaign”. Cowell’s lawyers were reported to have made a formal complaint to the police about the allegations, and it is believed that the German equivalent of the FBI is also involved.It is far too early to assess whether the latest media backlash against Cowell and his TV shows will continue, or whether they will have a lasting or damaging effect on his career. Undoubtedly, a number of weeks – and even months – will have to pass before a conclusion of any form can be made.

Regardless of the latest backlash, and how this will effect Cowell‘s power and popularity, it is clear his legacy has been assured. The changes he has helped to bring about in the music industry and in our cultural landscape will take months and even years to change.